Wolverton: Flight requirement needs repair

Intrigued by the utopian bent of the age, Nathaniel Hawthorne sampled the spirit and spat it to the ground.

The novelist discovered in Victorian New England what modern Washington has no desire to know: that being himself irrevocably flawed, man cannot perfect the imperfectable, specifically mankind. This aim has produced more bad laws and inane rules than can be counted without a spreadsheet. But, for once, Washington might have missed something.

Inside the cockpit of JetBlue Flight 191 on Tuesday, somewhere between New York and Amarillo, something went unfathomably wrong, and it’s only remarkable quick thinking and good fortune that prevented events from turning tragic. Had that been the case, some blame might reasonably have fallen on the Federal Aviation Administration, an agency adroit in slipping scrutiny.

Capt. Clayton F. Osbon, 49, suffered an apparent breakdown, emerging from the cockpit and racing through the cabin screaming about bombs and al-Qaida, according to federal authorities. Passengers wrestled the veteran pilot to the floor then held him there as the plane descended. He’s been charged with interfering with a flight crew and suspended by the airline.

Neighbors, a landlady and even JetBlue Airways CEO Dave Barger described Osbon as thoroughly professional and fun-loving, a man who’d shown no indication of the kind of trouble that would send Flight 191 to Amarillo. Rational people feel for him. If the accounts of authorities and passengers are true, Osbon was battling forces within that were beyond his control.

But rational people also must ask whether Osbon ever should have set foot aboard that plane. As the captain of a commercial jetliner carrying 141 passengers and crew members, flying across some of the most densely populated areas of the country, Osbon bore a responsibility almost unimaginable to the rest of us.

There might have been no means of anticipating and preventing Tuesday’s drama. But the FAA, which has been typically mum, cannot be certain.

That’s because regular medical screening the agency requires of pilots does not include a meaningful psychiatric component. It currently consists largely of diagnostic questions and self-reporting. Pilots said doctors frequently neglect the mental health aspect of exams. Whether it was covered in Osbon’s last screening in December is unknown because neither the FAA nor the airline would say.

However flawed the system might be, it has gone relatively unnoticed for years, except by those whose livelihood is aviation. That’s in large part because incidents involving crew members are extraordinarily uncommon, providing little impetus for further restrictions.

The sad case of Clayton Osbon should prompt a sober look at the system. It’s not a question of judging a man suffering from illness. That could happen to any of us. It’s a question of safety. The FAA to some extent understands this as well as the complexity of mental illness, listing specific conditions that warrant grounding and allowing pilots to regain their licenses following recovery.

What’s lacking is a sufficient mechanism to identify mental conditions during regular screening, which occurs every six months after pilots reach age 40. Physical exams appear fairly comprehensive. But too much of the burden to monitor mental health falls upon pilots who carry an understandable fear that self-reporting will get them grounded. The FAA and elected officials in Washington should fix this.

That should include the introduction of regular and reasonably thorough psychiatric exams. This might not have altered Tuesday’s events, nor might it affect a significant number of future cases. But a 6-year-old FAA study, if not Flight 191 alone, underscores the need.

The agency found 223, or roughly 5 percent, of more than 4,100 pilots killed from 1993 to 2003 were using mood-altering drugs such as antidepressants. None of those pilots reported it on their medical forms. The FAA apparently didn’t know because the pilots didn’t say.

In most instances when a politician declares there ought to be a law, there ought not. More than 230 years after the revolution, America is abundantly regulated. Licensing restrictions for commercial pilots, however, are inadequate. The country’s elected officials should act before another case like Osbon’s emerges and it horrifies rather than merely frightens us.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Comment viewing options

Sort Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It's premature to call for changes in FAA policies when nothing has as yet been disclosed regarding the cause of the pilot's meltdown or the nature and results of his previous medical exams (the last three months ago). Maybe he took an over-the-counter antihistamine and had a psychotic reaction to it. Maybe someone put PCP in his morning coffee. Maybe he was taking psychiatric medication and decided to discontinue it. Facts should come before conclusions are formed and recommendations for changes considered.

It's sad when people with no aviation knowledge write aviation articles and opinions. The idiot drivers of Amarillo have caused more injuries and death in the last month than commercial aviation has in two years. Why not do an editorial about drivers license standards?